Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[Keystone Phil]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

Marriage isn't a right. I do, however, support civil unions so don't tell me I'm not for "equal rights" for gays.

[Keystone Phil]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

Marriage isn't a right. I do, however, support civil unions so don't tell me I'm not for "equal rights" for gays.

Unless you support everyone getting civil unions(and leaving marriage soley for churches to handle with no state presence), your position still opposes gay rights. It may be more moderate and a good start but it's still anti-gay rights.

Oh darn. I guess I'm against gay rights then.

By the way, marriage still isn't a right.

[Keystone Phil]

The constitution guarentees equal rights for citizens. If heterosexuals can get marriage benefits why not homosexuals?

That's why I support civil unions. I don't want and we shouldn't expect to make the institution itself a right just because the government recognizes it.

[Keystone Phil]

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

I still don't have a problem with the government recognizing marriage. I guess this is the "anti gay equality" in me.

[Keystone Phil]

So you're against a simple reform which would more or less end political bickering over gay marriage by moving the question of recognizing gay marriage to the churches?

Uh, I want to end it by favoring civil unions.

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

I still don't have a problem with the government recognizing marriage. I guess this is the "anti gay equality" in me.

Sounds like it.

He needs to realize that America isn't only a christian nation.

Give me a break. Seriously. If I thought that was the case then I wouldn't even support civil unions.

[Keystone Phil]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

So you're not even happy with extending every other marriage benefit to gays? Unbelievable. It's not a matter of "superiority."

[Keystone Phil]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

It wouldn't.

Oh, ok. You win!

Only on this forum can someone be in support of civil unions and still be considered "anti gay." Nothing is good enough.

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

So you're not even happy with extending every other marriage benefit to gays? Unbelievable. It's not a matter of "superiority."

What is it a matter of? The "game" of capture the word?  Why is that important?  Some say it is important precisely because it does serve as a little dig at "the other." If it is not that, than what is it?

It's a matter of respecting the institutions that have traditionally decided marriage. I'm not comfortable with the government deciding to expand the boundaries of marriage. If my support for civil unions isn't good enough, whatever.

[Keystone Phil]

I am not sure you have answered my question. If all substance has been drained out of the matter, other than the use of the word "marriage," as nomenclature that is used in the civil law, why is that so important? Tradition? And why if that is the case, why should that in and of itself be the policy trump card here?

Because there is more to marriage than financial and other benefits that are bestowed by the government.

So, linguistic tradition outweighs equality in front of the law?  Equality in name, yes, but it still makes the implication that a relationship is inferior, or at least different.

You know that I respect your view on this a lot more than the alternative you're mentioning (no recognition)...but, no, to me it isn't "good enough."  I know it's not out of bigotry though.

Again, it's not just linguistic, Alcon. Please try to understand where we backward religious folk are coming from!

[Keystone Phil]

Have your religious lifestyle but leave the rest of us out of it. I'm not a protestant so why should I have to be forced to follow protestant mores?

...

I'm not a Protestant either. Thanks. My religious lifestyle has helped defined what marriage is so I don't think anyone can say they want to be "left out" of it.

So the thing is that the term "marriage" has religious overtones, that the civil law should not "degrade," by making the term more inclusive, is that it? Actually, if that is  your argument, I think the way I stated it, states your case the best. That is why folks pay me the big bucks! Best.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Marriage isn't a religious institution, and never really has been...are you really more offended by the truly traditional "marriage" (as an economic advantage) than between loving people of the same sex?  I guess I can't argue with you if your answer is "yes."

I'm offended that marriage can suddenly be redefined to fit in another group of people. If gays want just as many rights as anyone else in a relationship then I don't see why a civil union isn't enough to satisfy them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just don't see the difference in respecting religious institutions and calling straight unions "marriage" while calling gay unions "civil unions." You're the one that seems to be fighting some linguistic crusade. No one is being denied a right if their gay union isn't actually called marriage. Why fight so hard to get everyone else to call it that?

[Keystone Phil]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

It's stupid that you feel that it suggests inferiority and needs to be changed. You're the one arguing that it's not good enough to just extend benefits. I find that silly. Let marriage be marriage and let gay unions be whatever the hell they want to call a gay union. As long as we're all getting the same government benefits, we should all be happy. Get off the high horse. Seriously.

[Keystone Phil]

You simultaneously demand we accept that the definition of marriage is important (in that only we get to use it) and trivial (in that the gays should be satisfied with what they have). 

It's trivial in the sense that I don't understand why people who support gay unions insist that it be called marriage. The institution of marriage has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman for ages and governments have respected that. I believe they should continue to do so and people shouldn't have a problem as long as gay couples aren't being denied the necessary benefits. I just don't see the injustice there and yet time and time again, even as a supporter of civil unions, a certain group of us are branded as homophobes who don't want equal rights. It's tiring.

[Keystone Phil]

For the same reason, I imagine, you are bothered by the idea of your future relationship not being called "marriage."

Uh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And there's nothing broke about the name.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not saying that you think that but others do think it (even if they don't say it). Others in this thread basically said it.

[Keystone Phil]

The gays want to be able to get "married" for the same reason you give significance to the word "married."  It's not because you invest a lot of importance in the integrity of the word.  You're not that much of a grammarian.  It has some symbolic representation to you, and that is
why it matters to them.

I doubt the wording means more than the actual benefits that they fight for. I'm sure they can come up with a name for the union that has a special meaning to them.

[Keystone Phil]

What I meant Phil, is the possible fear that the use of the term "marriage" in the civil sphere, might be viewed as degrading it in the sacred sphere, as one leaches into the other. Does that make any sense?

No, I don't share that concern, but perhaps it is yours. The core of your concern remains veiled to me.  Maybe I am just being obtuse.

I still don't follow. I want marriage remain as it is and that government benefits be extended to gays for their equivilant type of union.

I think the equivalence, and the normalization, holds a lot of value to a group that has been anything but equal and normal for so long.

Hate to break it to you but forcing the government to call it marriage won't make it any more normal for many. Give them the benefits and let the government move on.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't like bringing this back to racial stuff, but it's the best analogy I can make.  It's a "separate but equal" doctrine.  It may not have the same seething hatred beyond it, it may even be good-natured and in the name of Judeo-Christianity, but it's still separate-but-equal.  And for the same reasons.

I don't see how it's unequal lawfully though. It's just the naming and it's being blown out of proportion.

Phil I know what you want, I just don't know why. I don't understand what fuels your concern as to the terminology used in the civil law. I don't mean to corner you, or embarrass you, I just can't get my mind around the ultimate wellspring of your public  policy views here. Maybe you need to think it through a bit more. Even when you get as old as I am, you will find, that on so many issues, more thought is required, and even then, one will be stalked by uncertainty. It comes with the territory.

My public policy is to support establishing unions that bestow the same benefits upon gay couples that the government does for straight couples but don't support it being called marriage. I don't get why that's so mind boggling. I don't need to think through it a bit more. Thanks for the condescending attitude though.

[Keystone Phil]

You're missing my point.  There are really three options here.

1. Naming is important.  They're entitled to find it important, but you can't say they're "blowing it out of proportion."  Then, this is a battle between the importance to you and theirs, which comes down to your religious beliefs vs. their (valid) claim to equality.

2. Naming is not important.  You're entitled to say they're "blowing it out of proportion," but it's hard for you to argue that the (trivial) importance of the name outweighs their (irrational) emotional investment in the name.

I'm saying it's important to those of us that value the traditional definition. I don't know why that has to be so important to a group that would be granted the same benefits. I don't believe the government should be forced to view it as marriage just because thats the way gays want it to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arguing that being granted benefits is just as important as what we call it is what is trivial. I've said that time and time again.

[Keystone Phil]

How about this:  We'll have gay marriage, but heterosexuals will reserve the right not to consider same-sex marriages to "really" be married.  In their mind, marriage will only be in between a man and a woman.  Also, gays can think that opposite-sex couples aren't "really" married.  People who think that only one type of marriage is valid can only partake in that kind.  That way, everyone gets what they want, and no one prevents anyone else from getting what they want.

Or why can't gays just consider it "marriage" and we can call it what most of them have been fighting for (civil unions)?

[Keystone Phil]

But why do you value the traditional definition?  Why is what you value more important than what they value, so much that it justifies denying all-around equality?

I value it because that definition has meant something for straight couples. I don't know why a gay couple couldn't move on and recognize that they have a union that means something for them. Again, it's not about equality.

[Keystone Phil]

Not to be obtuse, but aren't you pretty much saying "excluding gay people is very important to straight people.  Why can't gay people just realize this and move on?"?

When gay people can reproduce (a major reason for many of us as to why marriage is between a man and a woman), get back to me.

[Keystone Phil]

When gay people can reproduce (a major reason for many of us as to why marriage is between a man and a woman), get back to me.

Oh, so should post-menopausal or otherwise infertile women be disallowed from marrying too?

Knew that one was coming. I said reproduction is a major reason, not the only.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's put it this way - my reasons, regardless of what they are, just be argued to be just as irrelevant as your's. Why do you believe gays should be "married?" Because they love each other and want to be with each other? Ok. What's stopping them from either of those things? What's stopping them from being in love and living together? Marriage is very important to many of us but, benefits aside, there is nothing stopping people from being just as happy together even if they aren't "married."

[Keystone Phil]

"Benefits aside"? Homosexuals want recognition from their government that they have formed a committed, social pact together, as heterosexuals can. It's a validation of their relationship that brings in benefits because of its recognition. Churches would not have to recognize it. You, as an individual, would not have to recognize it. It's simply a matter of equality and recognition before it is a matter of benefits.

Uh...this is what happens when you come in half way through a debate. I'm in favor of the government recognizing their union. I support civil unions. The government would recognize them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, follow the debate from the beginning.

[Keystone Phil]

So, reproduction is only a major litmus test insofar as it's something only heterosexuals can do...right?  Then it's extraneous.

Oh well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does nothing to address what I said.

[Keystone Phil]

You asked "why do you believe gays should be married?"  I answered your question, explaining how that belief fits into my moral sense.  How does that do nothing to address what you said?

Haha, ok. Don't see where you laid out why gays should get married but whatever. We're not on the same page so this is pretty pointless now.

[Keystone Phil]

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

[Keystone Phil]

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

Just chaste right?

...yeah. Don't know if this is hostile like the early conversation (you trying to prove a point) but yes, that's the case.

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

If you are familiar with Catholic doctrine on this issue, then for you to characterize it that way is naive and Pollyannaish.

For a very long time, the only parth for young gay men growing up in devout communities to remain part of their communities was to joint the priesthood. My partner is Catholic, there are not surprisingly tons of Catholic gays in Boston, this is not some guesswork on my part. His parish priest when he was growing up in New York State kept a photo of Joan Crawford over his toilet. Everyone knows that the priesthood is full of gays and that celibacy is more often honored in the breach. 

Ok well just because it was the norm in certain communities to remain in the closet doesn't mean it's official Church teaching or even suggested today. And to suggest that the priesthood is "full of gays" is just further proof of your uneducated nature. Take your hostility and ignorance towards my Church elsewhere. Thanks.